Werdnabot is dead. Long Live manual labor!
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I wish you'd come back. You were a great editor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 Unblock request 2 If they let you come back 2.1 WikiProject Invite 3 Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion 4 Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking 5 AfD nomination of Scroogle 6 Unblock request 2 7 Welcome back 8 AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch 9 Reversion on Wikipedia Watch 9.1 Blocked 10 IP editing 11 Please don't do that

[edit] Unblock request

What I did was restore the consensus wording of one of our oldest policies, WP:EP, to the language it had for much longer than the six years I've been editing here. I admit, the idea of having to be drawn into yet another policy edit war didn't make me at all happy, and I realized in a moment of clarity that the project is seriously broken as there is no effective means of maintaining the project's ideals. WP:5P is apparently sacrosanct, but that's mere ritual when the underlying policies which effect it have no true relationship to it. Trying to keep them that way wasn't always such a lonesome and thankless task; but in every example of policy disputes for about two years now, there's simply months of bickering followed by, at best, the ArbCom taking six months to ponder the situation deeply and collectively shrug. I should not have directed my frustration at one random edit warrior, obviously, and like I said above, I would like to formally apologize for to him for that (I guess, that is, should he ever see this). However, my good name is now being dragged through the mud in an Arbitration case I'm not even a party to that I'm aware of, and I would have liked an opportunity to defend myself; but, OK sirs, whatever. I occasionally hold some slim hope that in the coming years or decades some clever Wikipedian will be able to stop the shifting sands of fickle policy, that are slowly but inevitably sinking the Five Pillars into the wasteland. But this silliness here... that I've been WP:BANned from the project for quitting, makes me have my doubts. I don't really know if there is anyone left who cares. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Kendrick being unblocked? The blocking admin stated that he would be "unblock[ed] with conditions" if he returned. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] If they let you come back

[edit] WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration: Date delinking amendment motion

A request to amend the dates delinking arbitration case (filed 19 July 2009) has resulted in a motion (filed 2 August 2009) that proposes to change the restrictions imposed on you as a result of the case. The proposed amendment would affect the restrictions pertaining to 16 editors, all of whom are now being notified of the proposed amendment. Given that the proposed amendment affects your restrictions, and further that the proposed amendment will restrict the filing of further proposed amendments for a period of 30 days, your input is invited at the amendments page. You may view an unofficial table of the proposed changes here. Comments from affected parties are currently being considered by the Arbitration Committee. If you would like the arbitrators who have already voted to reconsider their votes in light of your comments, please indicate that in your comments.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Discuss this

[edit] AfD nomination of Scroogle

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scroogle. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request 2

{{[[Template:OK, I'm tired/ennui-ed of IP editing. Hopefully, the un-WP:NPA edit summary which I was blocked for, which wasn't even noticed by its intended recipient, is now far enough in the distant past that some kind admin will be willing to unblock me, so I can come out from my semi-retirement and formally resume my editorial duties, among which could include defending the above sectioned article against AFD. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)|OK, I'm tired/ennui-ed of IP editing. Hopefully, the un-WP:NPA edit summary which I was blocked for, which wasn't even noticed by its intended recipient, is now far enough in the distant past that some kind admin will be willing to unblock me, so I can come out from my semi-retirement and formally resume my editorial duties, among which could include defending the above sectioned article against AFD. Thanks in advance. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)]]}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Alright, let's try again. m.o.p 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Request handled by: m.o.p 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Do we infer from your unblock request that you have been editing as an IP while blocked? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He edited to (among other things) apologize to me for the edit summary that got him blocked, I don't see that as a problem myself. The IP that was used has also made other constructive edits and has not edit-warred. I'd be happy to forgive and forget here, especially since this account is under restrictions to avoid the style guideline conflict that was the source of their most problematic behavior. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm OK with unblocking. I'll refer Black Kite to this page and we'll go from there. m.o.p 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If Tim's OK with it, then I am too. Obviously any recurrence of the behaviour that led to the block will mean (etc, etc.). Black Kite 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking. Again, if you cross the NPA line or violate policy again, I'm sure that admins won't be as forgiving. Cheers, m.o.p 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Good to see you returning. I hope all goes well for you from here, and if you want to talk, I'm always willing to listen. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

+1 Welcome back. Enigma^msg 21:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you need any more help or advice my talkpage is always open. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kendrick, welcome back to Wikipedia! --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to be careful in calling this vandalism. Clearly it is a good faith edit. Kevin (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion on Wikipedia Watch

Excuse me, but this is completely uncalled for. My revert was absolutely not vandalism, and it is highly insulting to be labeled as such. I request that you retract your edit immediately, as not only was it not vandalism, but the paragraph is decidedly not relevant to the article. GlassCobra 05:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I just came over here to say the same. You reverted a good-faith edit, complete with commentary and labeled it 'vandalism'. Right now, I see four editors (including me) disagreeing with your revert. You know the drill - discuss this on the talk page first, and don't describe edits you don't agree with as 'vandalism'. C'mon - Allie ^❤ 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Please do not call refer to content disagreements as vandalism. Also please do not repeatedly revert other users edits, you can seek consensus on the talk page if you like. ^Chillum 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I know vandalism when I see it, and am happy to call it such. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to take action; I might appear biased. But it looks as if you have reverted three times here; one more will bring you into conflict with wiki policy. The edits you have reverted were not, in my opinion, vandalism, which seems to be the general view expressed here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7, it is clear that you "know" vandalism even when you see something that is not. Please read through What is not vandalism before accusing another valued editor of vandalism, or simple take the advice of the several people who have come here to explain it to you. Continuing to accuse people of vandalism over what is merely a content disagreement can be seen as disruptive. ^Chillum 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote the Bard, I know not seems. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for continued use of the phrase "rvv" when reverting good faith edits even after the discussion above. To appeal this block, please add {{unblock|your reason here}}. NW (Talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP editing

First of all, let me recognise that you are curently unblocked, and state that I have no problem about that. I asked you if you were editing as an IP while blocked, a question, from your question on my talk-page, you appear not to understand the relevance of. Indeed, you call it an odd question, which it is not. I will explain. When you are blocked, as you were, it is you yourself who are blocked. Not just your username, not just a specified IP, but you. yourself. The person. And editing as an IP while blocked is block evasion, which is not acceptable. I understand from another admin that the IP edits which you made were essentially contributory. They were still, by definition, potentially against wikipedia policy and the unblocking admin has been generous. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, it is not "cloak and dagger stuff" as you put it; it is an exact description of current wikipedia policy. And you can have as much time for it or as little, as you choose, but in the event of your being blocked again - which I hope will not occur - it is a policy which will be enforced. I am not playing about here, I am trying to persuade you to take note of a serious warning. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I note your claim to have helped in formulating policies here; I would be interested to know to which ones your refer. Clearly you played no part in formulating the policy on block evasion, which is what you are doing if you edit as an IP during a block imposed for vandalism, as in your recent case. The situation is a little different in the case of a username block, which has not applied to you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't do that

When you have recently been blocked for careless reverting, reverting an admin's close of a deletion discussion that you are a heavily invested participant in is not a very good idea. Please don't do it again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)